中觀論疏 1.19.2

1.19.2

自有菩薩解大而未通小，如《法華．藥草喻品》有此菩薩，今令菩薩解大解小即悟於權實二智。 二十五品破大申大令菩薩悟實智，次兩品令菩薩悟權智，便入佛知見，得成法身。 十方三世佛出世大意既爾，四依菩薩出世大意亦爾。 四依菩薩出世大意亦爾，故四依如佛，亦即是佛也。 四為未曾學大小內外之人直為說小乘教，令其悟小乘道果也。 又總判四種障障於大乘：一外道，障中之重、障中之遠； 二小乘，障中之次； 三有所得大乘，障無所得； 四無明，都不識大小。 而昔本有大乘根性，菩薩為之說大，令破此四迷，又令此四人悟入大也。 小亦有四種障：一外道； 二有所得小； 三偏執大以大斥小，如《法華》論偏執一乘菩薩； 四無明，都不識大小。 今亦令此四人悟入小也。 問：《十二門》與《中論》申破何異？ 答：《中論》破四迷，申大小二教； 《十二門》亦破四迷，而獨申大教。 第三重明大乘觀行推功歸佛者，凡有十義：一者欲示小乘破邪見不盡，顯大乘破邪見盡，故重明大乘破邪見。 二者前明從大生小、後辨攝小歸大，故重明大。 如《法華經》總序十方諸佛及釋迦一化，凡有三輪：一根本法輪，謂一乘教也。 二枝末法輪之教，眾生不堪聞一，故於一佛乘分別說三，三從一起故稱枝末也。 三攝末歸本，會彼三乘同歸一極。 此之三門，無教不收、無理不攝，如空之含萬像、若海之納百川。 今論三段，還申佛三經：初二十五品，申一乘根本之教； 次兩品，申佛枝末之教； 後重明大乘，申攝末歸本。 是故有三段之文。 破此三迷、申茲三教，並是佛功，故最後推功歸佛。 三輪之經既無教不攝，申三輪之論亦無教不收，是故斯論窮深極廣也。 三者初申大乘、次申小乘，則似成大小乘論，不專名大論； 以其中間雖復明小，以初後並大，故名大論。 四者示小不苞大、大能含小。 由具明一化始終大小諸教，然後始名大乘論，是故第三重論大乘，至論未曾大小耳。 五者申大有其二門：一者就大申大、二者舉小顯大。 二十五品即是就大申大，後之兩品舉小顯大。 六者前但為大緣申明大法，後但為小緣不堪受大故請說於小，所以明小。 七者此論正明中道，欲辨觀中道者凡有四人，下智觀故得聲聞菩提，乃至上智觀故得諸佛菩提。 前二十五品已明上智及上上智觀得菩提，後之兩品次辨中下二智得菩提義。 故此論文云「上已聞大乘法入第一義，今欲聞聲聞法入第一義。 」第一義即中道，故知中道無二，入者投法不同，即其證也。 八者初明大、次辨小，惑者便起大小二見，是故最後俱泯二見，明正道未曾大小。 九者申大乘有二門：一者前略後廣、二者前廣後略。 初七品略明大乘觀行，次〈作者品〉已去廣明大乘觀行，此是為解義故； 二者二十五品廣明大乘觀行，後一偈略明大乘觀行，為易持故也。 十者二十七品雙破大小二邪、俱申二正，惑者便起邪正二心，是故最後雙泯二見，道門未曾邪正，故後長行云「無人無法，不應生邪見正見。 」體用權實亦爾。 初大次小，從體起用、從實起權，次攝用歸體、收權入實。 入實則無復有權，亦未曾有實，如是五句。 故云「佛不能行、不能到，是法不可示，言辭相寂滅。 」不知何以目之，約此論則稱為中，經則名為妙法、法身、佛性、波若。 問：依經明佛前說聲聞法、後說菩薩法，論主應前申小教、後論大乘，何故前大後小耶？ 答：經乃前小後大，但此論正申大乘、傍申小教，故前申於大、後申於小也。 又佛雖說小，意在於大。 故《法華》云「諸佛如來但為教菩薩」，今欲申佛本意，故初明大也。 又佛經亦前說於大、後明於小，如初在道樹說華嚴之教，後趣鹿苑轉小乘法輪。 今亦依佛此旨，故前大後小。 就二十五品，舊開為二：初二十一品破世間人法，明大乘觀行； 後四品破出世人法，明大乘觀行。

There are bodhisattvas who understand the Mahāyāna but have not mastered the Hīnayāna, as in the "Medicinal Herbs Parable" chapter of the Lotus Sūtra where such bodhisattvas exist. Now, by causing bodhisattvas to understand both the Mahāyāna and the Hīnayāna, they are brought to awaken to the two wisdoms: the expedient and the real. The twenty-five chapters refute Mahāyāna [errors] and elucidate the Mahāyāna to bring bodhisattvas to awaken to the real wisdom; the following two chapters cause bodhisattvas to awaken to the expedient wisdom, so that they straightaway enter the Buddha's knowledge and vision and attain the dharma-body. Since the grand intention behind the appearance of the Buddhas in the ten directions and the three periods of time is thus, so too is the grand intention behind the appearance of the four-reliance bodhisattvas. The grand intention behind the appearance of the four-reliance bodhisattvas is likewise thus; therefore the four reliances are like the Buddha, and indeed are the Buddha. Fourth, for those who have never studied either the Mahāyāna or the Hīnayāna, whether internal or external, [the Buddha] directly teaches the Hīnayāna teaching for them, leading them to awaken to the path and fruit of the Hīnayāna. Moreover, in general terms there are four kinds of hindrances that obstruct the Mahāyāna: first, non-Buddhists, who are the weightiest and most distant among hindrances; second, the Hīnayāna, which is the next hindrance; third, the Mahāyāna of grasping, which hinders non-grasping; fourth, ignorance, which recognizes neither the Mahāyāna nor the Hīnayāna. Yet because they originally possessed the Mahāyāna root-capacity from former times, the bodhisattva preaches the Great [Vehicle] for them to destroy these four delusions, and also to cause these four classes of people to awaken and enter into the Great [Vehicle]. The Small [Vehicle] likewise has four kinds of hindrances: first, non-Buddhists; second, the Hīnayāna of grasping; third, grasping exclusively to the Great so as to repudiate the Small by means of the Great, as in the Lotus Sūtra's discussion of bodhisattvas who grasp exclusively to the Ekayāna; fourth, ignorance, which recognizes neither the Mahāyāna nor the Hīnayāna. Now he likewise causes these four classes of people to awaken and enter into the Small [Vehicle]. Question: What is the difference in refutation and elucidation between the Dvādaśamukha-śāstra and the Madhyamaka-śāstra? Answer: The Madhyamaka-śāstra refutes the four delusions and elucidates both teachings of the Mahāyāna and Hīnayāna; the Dvādaśamukha-śāstra also refutes the four delusions, but elucidates solely the Mahāyāna teaching. Third, regarding the re-elucidation of the Mahāyāna contemplation-practice to attribute the merit back to the Buddha, there are ten points of significance: First, wishing to show that the Hīnayāna does not exhaustively refute wrong views, whereas the Mahāyāna is shown to refute wrong views completely, he re-elucidates the Mahāyāna's refutation of wrong views. Second, because he previously explained generating the Small from the Great and subsequently explains gathering the Small back into the Great, he re-elucidates the Great. As the Lotus Sūtra summarizes the entire conversion by the Buddhas of the ten directions and Śākyamuni, there are altogether three turnings [of the wheel]: First, the fundamental wheel of the Dharma, meaning the Ekayāna teaching. Second, the teaching of the branch-and-leaf wheel of the Dharma: sentient beings could not bear to hear the One, so within the One Buddha-Vehicle he differentiated and taught three; since the three arise from the one, they are called the branches and leaves. Third, gathering the branches back to the root, unifying those three vehicles to return together to the single ultimate. These three gateways exclude no teaching and leave no principle ungathered, just as space encompasses the myriad forms and the ocean takes in the hundred rivers. Now the three sections of this treatise in turn elucidate the Buddha's three sūtra teachings: the first twenty-five chapters elucidate the fundamental teaching of the Ekayāna; the next two chapters elucidate the Buddha's branch-and-leaf teaching; and the final re-elucidation of the Mahāyāna elucidates gathering the branches back to the root. Therefore the text consists of three sections. Refuting these three delusions and elucidating these three teachings are entirely the work of the Buddha; thus at the very end he attributes the merit back to the Buddha. Since the sūtras of the three turnings omit no teaching, the treatise elucidating the three turnings also excludes no teaching; for this reason, this treatise explores the profoundest depths and reaches the broadest extent. Third, by first elucidating the Mahāyāna and next elucidating the Hīnayāna, it might appear to become a treatise on both the Mahāyāna and Hīnayāna, and not uniquely termed a Mahāyāna treatise; however, although the Small is also explained in the middle, because both the beginning and the end are the Great, it is called a Mahāyāna treatise. Fourth, it shows that the Small cannot encompass the Great, whereas the Great is able to contain the Small. Only by fully clarifying all the teachings, Great and Small, throughout the beginning and end of a single teaching era is it then called a Mahāyāna treatise; therefore, in the third [section] he treats the Mahāyāna again, although in the ultimate discourse there is never Great or Small. Fifth, elucidating the Great has two approaches: first, elucidating the Great in terms of the Great; second, revealing the Great by adducing the Small. The twenty-five chapters are precisely elucidating the Great in terms of the Great, while the final two chapters reveal the Great by adducing the Small. Sixth, previously he elucidated the great Dharma solely for those with Mahāyāna capacities, while later, solely because those with Hīnayāna capacities could not bear to receive the Great, they requested the teaching of the Small, which is why he explains the Small. Seventh, this treatise directly clarifies the middle way; wishing to explain those who contemplate the middle way, there are altogether four classes of people: through lower-wisdom contemplation they attain the bodhi of the śrāvaka, up to the highest-wisdom contemplation through which they attain the bodhi of the Buddhas. The previous twenty-five chapters have already explained the attainment of bodhi through higher and highest wisdom contemplation, and the subsequent two chapters next explain the meaning of attaining bodhi through medium and lower wisdom. Thus the treatise text states: "Above, one has already heard the Mahāyāna Dharma and entered the ultimate truth; now one wishes to hear the śrāvaka Dharma and enter the ultimate truth." The ultimate truth is the middle way; hence we know that the middle way is non-dual, while those who enter rely upon different dharmas, which is precisely the proof. Eighth, having first explained the Great and next distinguished the Small, the confused would then give rise to the two views of Great and Small; therefore at the very end he abolishes both views, clarifying that the correct Path has never been Great or Small. Ninth, elucidating the Mahāyāna has two approaches: first, brief before and extensive after; second, extensive before and brief after. The first seven chapters briefly explain the Mahāyāna contemplation-practice, and from the "Agent Chapter" onward he extensively explains the Mahāyāna contemplation-practice; this is for the sake of understanding the meaning. Second, the twenty-five chapters extensively explain the Mahāyāna contemplation-practice, while the final single verse briefly explains the Mahāyāna contemplation-practice, for the sake of easy retention. Tenth, the twenty-seven chapters both refute the two wrongs of Great and Small and elucidate the two rights; the confused would then give rise to the two notions of wrong and right, and therefore at the very end he abolishes both views: the gate of the Path has never been wrong or right. Thus the later prose commentary states: "Since there is neither person nor dharma, one should not generate wrong views or right views." The same is true of essence and function, expedient and real. First the Great, then the Small—this is giving rise to function from essence, giving rise to the expedient from the real; next, gathering function back to essence, absorbing the expedient into the real. Once entered into the real, there is no longer any expedient, nor has there ever been the real—such are the five clauses. Thus it is said: "The Buddha cannot walk it, cannot reach it; this dharma cannot be indicated, and the characteristics of verbal expression are tranquil and extinguished." One does not know what to call it; regarding this treatise, it is called the middle, while in the sūtras it is called the wonderful Dharma, the dharma-body, Buddha-nature, and prajñā. Question: In accordance with the sūtras, which explain that the Buddha first preached the śrāvaka Dharma and later preached the bodhisattva Dharma, the treatise author should have first elucidated the Hīnayāna teaching and later discussed the Mahāyāna; why does he place the Great first and the Small later? Answer: Although the sūtras indeed place the Small first and the Great later, this treatise primarily elucidates the Mahāyāna and collaterally elucidates the Hīnayāna teaching; therefore it first elucidates the Great and later elucidates the Small. Furthermore, although the Buddha preached the Small, his intention lay in the Great. Thus the Lotus Sūtra says: "The Buddhas, the Tathāgatas, only teach bodhisattvas." Now, wishing to elucidate the Buddha's original intention, he first explains the Great. Moreover, the Buddha's sūtras also first taught the Great and later explained the Small, as when he first taught the Avataṃsaka teaching at the foot of the Bodhi tree, and later proceeded to the Deer Park to turn the Hīnayāna wheel of the Dharma. Now he likewise relies on this intention of the Buddha; hence the Great comes first and the Small later. Concerning the twenty-five chapters, the ancients divided them into two: the first twenty-one chapters refute worldly persons and dharmas, explaining the Mahāyāna contemplation-practice; the latter four chapters refute world-transcending persons and dharmas, explaining the Mahāyāna contemplation-practice.